Legislator Giurisprudenza & Legislazione
DE FR IT EN
Analizza in Legislator
4 BN 8/21, 4 BN 8/21 (4 CN 9/21) ECLI:DE:BVerwG:2021:271021B4BN8.21.0 Generato dall'IA

Requirements for substitute public notification of a development restriction extension

Numero d'incarto 4 BN 8/21, 4 BN 8/21 (4 CN 9/21)
Autorità giudiziaria
Giurisdizione Germania (DE)
Data della decisione
Esito del giudizio Accolto (Allowed)
Apri la fonte ufficiale Versione Markdown leggibile dalle macchine (.md)

Sintesi Legislator

Generato dall'IA

The Federal Administrative Court granted the complainant’s leave to appeal, reversing the Oberverwaltungsgericht Sachsen-Anhalt’s decision to deny appellate review, with the final substantive merits of the case reserved for the Revisionsverfahren. The dispute concerned the legal requirements for substitute public notification (Ersatzverkündung) regarding the extension of a development restriction (Veränderungssperre), specifically challenging the procedural sufficiency of the prior notice. The court admitted the appeal based on the fundamental significance of the legal question under § 132 Abs. 2 Nr. 1 VwGO, determining that the clarification of standards for substitute notification in this context necessitates review by the higher court, while provisionally setting the amount in dispute at €15,000 for the subsequent proceedings.

Regesto Legislator

Generato dall'IA

§ 132 Abs. 2 Nr. 1 VwGO, § 63 Abs. 1 Satz 1 GKG, § 47 Abs. 1 Satz 1, § 52 Abs. 1 und § 63 Abs. 1 Satz 1 GKG; Requirements for substitute public notification of a development restriction extension: The dispute concerned the legal requirements for substitute public notification (Ersatzverkündung) regarding the extension of a development restriction (Veränderungssperre), specifically challenging the procedural sufficiency of the prior notice. The court admitted the appeal based on the fundamental significance of the legal question under § 132 Abs. 2 Nr. 1 VwGO, determining that the clarification of standards for substitute notification in this context necessitates review by the higher court, while provisionally setting the amount in dispute at €15,000 for the subsequent proceedings.

Parole chiave

Generato dall'IA
restrizioni di zona notificazione della decisione estensione della procedura presupposto processuale proroga del permesso edilizio diritto di risposta

Disposizioni normative citate

Generato dall'IA
§ 132 Abs. 2 Nr. 1 VwGO
Die Revision ist wegen grundsätzlicher Bedeutung der Rechtssache nach § 132 Abs. 2 Nr. 1 VwGO zuzulassen.
§ 63 Abs. 1 Satz 1 GKG
1 und § 63 Abs. 1 Satz 1 GKG.
§ 47 Abs. 1 Satz 1, § 52 Abs. 1 und § 63 Abs. 1 Satz 1 GKG
Legal basis for the provisional determination of the amount in dispute (Streitwert) in the dispositive.
Generato dall'IA
4 CN 9/21
Validity of substitute public notice for extending a development moratorium without specifying exact expiration date
7 B 8/22
Public announcement of simplified environmental permits and the triggering of statutory appeal periods for the general public
4 BN 39/21
Divergent validity requirements for public notices triggering administrative review deadlines versus substantive objection deadlines in land use planning
4 CN 1/14
Public notice requirements for environmental information in development plan proceedings: mandatory specificity and prohibition of exceptions under § 3(2) BauGB
4 BN 58/19
Scope of regional plan public participation notifications and inadmissibility of restricting mass objections via analogous application of VwVfG

Questioni giuridiche chiave estratte da Legislator

Generato dall'IA
§ 47 Abs. 1 Satz 1, § 52 Abs. 1 und § 63 Abs. 1 Satz 1 GKG

Legal basis for the provisional determination of the amount in dispute (Streitwert) in the dispositive.

Ti chiedi come si applica questa sentenza alla tua fattispecie?

Analizza questa decisione insieme alla legislazione federale e cantonale, ai commentari e alla giurisprudenza successiva in Legislator AI.

Apri in Legislator →

Testo completo

Revisionszulassung; Verlängerung einer Veränderungssperre; Ersatzverkündung

[TENOR]

Auf die Beschwerde der Antragstellerin wird die Entscheidung des Oberverwaltungsgerichts des Landes Sachsen-Anhalt über die Nichtzulassung der Revision in dem auf die mündliche Verhandlung vom 18. November 2020 ergangenen Urteil aufgehoben.

Die Revision wird zugelassen.

Die Kostenentscheidung bleibt der Schlussentscheidung vorbehalten.

Der Wert des Streitgegenstandes wird für das Revisionsverfahren vorläufig auf 15 000 € festgesetzt.

[GRUENDE]

Die Beschwerde ist begründet.

Die Revision ist wegen grundsätzlicher Bedeutung der Rechtssache nach § 132 Abs. 2 Nr. 1 VwGO zuzulassen. Das Revisionsverfahren kann voraussichtlich zur Klärung der Anforderungen an die Ersatzverkündung der Verlängerung einer Veränderungssperre beitragen.

Die vorläufige Streitwertfestsetzung für das Revisionsverfahren beruht auf § 47 Abs. 1 Satz 1, § 52 Abs. 1 und § 63 Abs. 1 Satz 1 GKG.